Why are there no cows in the Devonian?

[bhsmte]

You certainly can NOT write Genesis 1.

After a few pops, Hitch could probably do quite well.

 

[PsychoSarah]

After a few pops, Hitch could probably do quite well.

No, he could do better.

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

ANYONE: Don't be fooled by one of the posts above that purports to be showing evidenced for the Geologic Column. Simply Google "Evidence for Geologic Column" and there you will see things like "theoretical...presumed...." etc. Try to find a picture of one. You never will because the GC and its Cambrian, Devonian, Jurassic etc. etc. is all b.s designed to make your believe the pseudo religion of evolution. Don't take my word for it or anyone else's. Just Google.

Bye for good.

Ok, I have to address this.

The Geologic Column absolutely, 100% positive, exists. It may not exist in the way you want it too, but it is there.

In simplified terms, the Geologic column is stratum. If you want a picture just Google Stratum or go to the grand canyon, or many other places that they are exposed.

Due to natural processes such as erosion you will not always find every layer together at once, but how we determine the layers is through Radiometric dating. The dating of stratum is what makes up the Geologic Column.

If you want a better example Google the K/T Boundary, this is found throughout the world and is made of shocked quartz and iridium (a very rare material on earth)

Now that we've covered the Geologic column, let's discuss radiometric dating. There are many isotopes that we can choose from to date many different things, some isotopes are better suited for some things.

Carbon-14 is used to date organic material with an approximate limit of 60,000 years. We know c14 dating works because we can test it by dating organic materials of a known age. With that said, Carbon-14 is never used to date stratum.

The better isotope for rock dating is Uranium-Lead. Despite what some creationists say about decay rates, there is no known mechanism by which the rate of decay changes.

Radiometric dating wasn't something someone just pulled out of thin air. We can directly measure decay rates and when crosschecked against other known methods of dating, the results are consistent.

 

[Black Akuma]

ANYONE: Don't be fooled by one of the posts above that purports to be showing evidenced for the Geologic Column. Simply Google "Evidence for Geologic Column" and there you will see things like "theoretical...presumed...." etc. Try to find a picture of one. You never will because the GC and its Cambrian, Devonian, Jurassic etc. etc. is all b.s designed to make your believe the pseudo religion of evolution. Don't take my word for it or anyone else's. Just Google.

Bye for good.

I just don't understand why so many people have trouble grasping the rather simple concept of a representation. Like, because the Geologic Column isn't completely uniform all over the world like a layer cake or something, the wool is being pulled over your eyes.

'Don't take my for it or anyone else's. Just Google'. Please. If you Google anything, by definition you're going to be taking someone else's word for it. If you really doubt the evidence, go to a dig site or something, learn the proper science and prove it wrong.

 

[Seipai]

At the surface of the Earth only fractional parts of the geologic column can be observed. In places almost the entire column is present and can be accessed by drilling. The Williston Basin in North Dakota is one such place. What is important is that the column can be traced from location to location. Some areas will be more complete, some less. What we don't see are layers "out of order" with only a few exceptions that were obviously caused by mountain building.

I am totally unaware of any creationist or flood geologist explanation that has not been totally debunked.

 

[Loudmouth]

ANYONE: Don't be fooled by one of the posts above that purports to be showing evidenced for the Geologic Column.

If we don't find a single archaeological site where every ancient culture is buried one on top of the other, does this mean that all of the history books are wrong?

Try to find a picture of one. You never will because the GC and its Cambrian, Devonian, Jurassic etc. etc. is all b.s designed to make your believe the pseudo religion of evolution. Don't take my word for it or anyone else's. Just Google.

Bye for good.

Sediments are dated by the radiometric dates of the igneous rocks above and below them. But thanks for pretending to understand how geology is done.

 

[CabVet]

By the way you respond, I guess you are a young kid no more than 30 years old. Am I right?

Exactly, when you lose the argument, just attack the messenger. That's called an ad hominem.

 

[CabVet]

You certainly can NOT write Genesis 1.

I agree with that one, to write something like Genesis 1, a person has to unlearn everything he/she knows and think like someone who lived 3,000 years ago. That is not easy to do.

Now, how about we go back to topic? Why are there no cows in the Devonian? Or no fruit trees in the Cambrian?

 

[Loudmouth]

This argument won't work. Creationism includes science and is beyond science and the idea of falsification does not apply. It can not be falsified.

IOW, no matter what fossils we find in any given sediment, you will claim that it is consistent with creationism, right?

 

[CabVet]

IOW, no matter what fossils we find in any given sediment, you will claim that it is consistent with creationism, right?

Exactly right:

Creationism includes science and is beyond science and the idea of falsification does not apply. It can not be falsified.

 

[anyathesword]

Look, don't confuse yourself with a review of a book of critical articles about evolutionary psychology before you understand what is being discussed and why and by whom. The authors of the book you are citing are all "believers in evolution", an interesting phrase, but you get the point. They are not saying what you think they are saying. If you bothered to actually try and learn something instead of trawling websites for snippets that appear to back up your religious convictions about evolution you wouldn't make these mistakes. In short, learning the science takes effort and requires you to exert some mental effort, so you, of course, will not do it. Surfing websites for confirmation of your biases is much more fun and takes no effort at all so is, of course, what you do. Just don't be surprised when your posts are dismissed as drivel.

I'm not surprised Mr. Strawberry, no one is going to see the deception or the Truth, it's sad.

What about the scientific method, Mr. Strawberry? No one has responded to that... neither to the fact evolution plays along the same lines as a myth and a religion.

You don't need to tell me how to search, you need to refute what I say!

 

[CabVet]

I'm not surprised Mr. Strawberry, no one is going to see the deception or the Truth, it's sad.

What about the scientific method, Mr. Strawberry? No one has responded to that... neither to the fact evolution plays along the same lines as a myth and a religion.

You don't need to tell me how to search, you need to refute what I say!

What exactly do you think the scientific method is?

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not surprised Mr. Strawberry, no one is going to see the deception or the Truth, it's sad.

What about the scientific method, Mr. Strawberry? No one has responded to that... neither to the fact evolution plays along the same lines as a myth and a religion.

You don't need to tell me how to search, you need to refute what I say!

The hypothesis is that we should see a progression of fossils in sediments consistent with evolution. That is exactly what we see. Evolution is science, and it adheres to the scientific method.

 

[anyathesword]

The hypothesis is that we should see a progression of fossils in sediments consistent with evolution. That is exactly what we see. Evolution is science, and it adheres to the scientific method.

The scientific method is more than just a hypothesis, you should all know that!!

I remember in Chemistry, I always had to write a report using the scientific method. And one important factor besides the hypothesis is OBSERVATION!!

And REPEATABILITY!!! That's the conducting the experiment and testing it.

Here is the scientific method:

Step 1: Make an observation
Step 2: Ask a question
Step 3: Formulate a hypothesis
Step 4: Conduct an experiment
Step 5: Analyze data and draw a conclusion

Now this is science. Now explain to me how the origin of information and the theory of Evolution works here?

Where are the tests? Where is the independent and dépendent variables, the control group and the experimental group? Where is the observation supporting each hypothesis? Where are the tests?

I'm having a hard time seeing the origin of life playing here... help me out...

 

[Mr Strawberry]

You are defending something you don't understand. If you don't understand it, then how can you know it is true? It is like speaking in a language you never learned, and translating it without ever considering that your uninformed translation might be incorrect.

Lol, not understanding foreign languages is no stumbling block for the monumental ego of juvenissun. How dare the foreign language imagine it needs to be learnt by the great juvenissun before he can translate it. Who does the foreign language think it is! It must bow before the mighty juvenissun. Shame on the foreign language for challenging the might of juvenissun!

 

[Mr Strawberry]

By the way you respond, I guess you are a young kid no more than 30 years old. Am I right?

You speak as if you are older than 30, juve. I always had you pegged for about 19, at a push.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

The scientific method is more than just a hypothesis, you should all know that!!

I remember in Chemistry, I always had to write a report using the scientific method. And one important factor besides the hypothesis is OBSERVATION!!

And REPEATABILITY!!! That's the conducting the experiment and testing it.

Here is the scientific method:

Step 1: Make an observation
Step 2: Ask a question
Step 3: Formulate a hypothesis
Step 4: Conduct an experiment
Step 5: Analyze data and draw a conclusion

Now this is science. Now explain to me how the origin of information and the theory of Evolution works here?

Where are the tests? Where is the independent and dépendent variables, the control group and the experimental group? Where is the observation supporting each hypothesis? Where are the tests?

I'm having a hard time seeing the origin of life playing here... help me out...

Let's me get this right. You admit to not knowing what the evidence for evolution is. You are too lazy to make the effort to find out what the evidence is. But now you want us to provide the evidence for you so you can see how the theory of evolution was formulated , tested and verified. Seriously?

You have a lot of reading to catch up on.

 

[Black Akuma]

I remember in Chemistry, I always had to write a report using the scientific method. And one important factor besides the hypothesis is OBSERVATION!!

And REPEATABILITY!!! That's the conducting the experiment and testing it.

We've never directly observed a plate moving, and we certainly can't repeat it. But the theory of plate tectonics states, among other things, that the movement of such plates causes earthquakes. Are plate tectonics not science?

What about atomic theory? No one has ever directly observed an atom. Is atomic theory not science?

You say you took chemistry? I'm sure they taught you about reactions. Did you ever directly observe elements reacting? Actually see the atoms reacting? Did you actually see chemical bonds breaking with your own two eyes? No, of course not. But you still call that science, right?

No one's ever been to the center of the Earth, or even more than a few miles below the surface.

Nonetheless, we have things like this that tell us what the Earth is made of right to the core. We know what composition of our planet all the way through, even though we haven't and likely never will travel beneath the upper layers. Is that not scientific?

Would you say that, just because we've never been to the center of the Earth, that this depiction of the Earth's insides is as valid as the one above it? There are people who genuinely believe the Earth is hollow and that it has a star at its center. Since it can't be directly observed, should they be taken seriously?

 

[FredHoyle]

Now this is science. Now explain to me how the origin of information and the theory of Evolution works here?

Where are the tests? Where is the independent and dépendent variables, the control group and the experimental group? Where is the observation supporting each hypothesis? Where are the tests?

I'm having a hard time seeing the origin of life playing here... help me out...

No need to bother with all that science stuff you just stick with goddidit and you won't go far wrong, you'll get by.
Didn't you know that thick was the new cool? smart people are thought of as the new dumb dumbs,
especially by the new cool people.

China is training more scientist than there are white people in the US.

 

[juvenissun]

What interpretation? I am using a plain reading of Genesis. There is no qualifier. If you feel there is please show us.

Why are you adding to the Bible when you say God created fish on two different days?

I read it differently from you do.
Yours can not answer the fossil record. Mine can.